Replies

After the battle, a different kind of journalist arrives on the scene. These wimpy liberal reporters cower each time a mortar goes off. The reporter who fought through the battle casually says not to fear, those are American mortar rounds. He doesn't cower. The other reporters ask him what happened. He doesn't answer. The reporters then run over to Mr. Gibson and ask him how it feels to have so many of his men killed. Obviously they have no appreciation for the magnitude of the events that just transpired.

This moment in the movie suggested to the audience that the behavior of the press and Col. Moore's (Gibson) reaction when they got in his face was an ominous foreboding of the extent to which the press would serve to weaken our resolve and contribute to losing the war. Indeed the part where Moore shows his disdain when the politicians crossed the line by taking a third of his men and later requesting he return to headquarters in the middle of the battle was revealing. Anyone seeing this movie should come away with a deeper understanding as to why we must expose, marginalize and mock those who seek to weaken our resolve or interfere with our troops in the war on terror.

Moore shows his disdain when the politicians crossed the line by taking a third of his men .....

I think what that scene reflected was the re-organization that had taken place in becoming the 1st Air Cav Division. To go from an Infantry Division to Air Cav meant a sharp reduction in the number of ground fighters (blues). His main complaint was that there had not been enough time to train under the newly developed doctrine of Air Cav, Air Mobile, Air Assault, etc., before deployment.

That very scene represents, I believe, why President Bush will not allow the press to cover the present war in the manner to which they had become accustomed. While the press, in theory, could perform a valuable function, they have become, hopefully unwittingly, aides to the enemy over time.